[Bug 948589] Review Request: bookkeeper - Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 12 16:44:33 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948589
--- Comment #12 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser at gmail.com> ---
Package has some minor issues, no real blockers, so fixing in SCM will be OK.
#####
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Maven packages should use new style packaging
Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven
---> comment about this in spec and update after F18 EOL
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: make
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
---> remove from BR, please
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in libhedwig,
libhedwig-devel, bookkeeper-java
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
---> false positve: main-pkg is app for running on server.
rest is either docs or libs providing API for client-software.
- libhedwig.x86_64: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libhedwig01.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0
---> get rid of unused-shlib-dep, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
AFTER invoking autoreconf invoke:
`sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool`
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libhedwig ,
libhedwig-devel , bookkeeper-java , bookkeeper-javadoc
---> see above
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/948589-bookkeeper/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a
comment
Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a
reason for this
---> reason commented in spec: missing deps
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
---> SourceX are legit.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
---> no `make check`-target present in Makefile(s).
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java:
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
Note: libhedwig subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libhedwig-4.2.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
libhedwig-devel-4.2.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
bookkeeper-java-4.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
bookkeeper-javadoc-4.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
libhedwig.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hedwig -> Dwight
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint bookkeeper-javadoc libhedwig-devel libhedwig bookkeeper-java
libhedwig.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hedwig -> Dwight
libhedwig.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libhedwig01.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
---> get rid of unused-shlib-dep, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
Requires
--------
bookkeeper-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
libhedwig-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libhedwig(x86-64)
libhedwig01.so.0()(64bit)
libhedwig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libboost_system.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libboost_thread-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
liblog4cxx.so.10()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libprotobuf.so.8()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.10()(64bit)
libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
bookkeeper-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
apache-commons-cli
apache-commons-codec
apache-commons-collections
apache-commons-configuration
apache-commons-io
derby
guava
java
jline
jpackage-utils
log4j
netty
protobuf-java
slf4j
zookeeper-java
Provides
--------
bookkeeper-javadoc:
bookkeeper-javadoc
libhedwig-devel:
libhedwig-devel
libhedwig-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(hedwig-0.1)
libhedwig:
libhedwig
libhedwig(x86-64)
libhedwig01.so.0()(64bit)
bookkeeper-java:
bookkeeper-java
mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:bookkeeper)
mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:bookkeeper-server)
mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-client)
mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-protocol)
mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-server)
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 948589
######
With this one the last blocker for hadoop is done. :)
hadoop be welcome for F20 !!!!
APPROVED!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CPHj7X2erB&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list